header-logo header-logo

14 July 2011 / Michael L Nash
Issue: 7474 / Categories: Features , Public , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

Crown prosecution

Michael L Nash revists the Sultan case to investigate issues of sovereignty & immunity

The recent case of R (Sultan of Pahang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 616, [2011] All ER (D) 243 (May) raised a number of important issues, legal, political and constitutional. The original case had been brought by the Sultan claiming that, as a head of state, he was entitled to immunity from immigration controls by reason of s 20(1) and possibly s 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 (the 1978 Act).

Sovereignty

This immediately brought into focus the question of sovereignty, who is a sovereign, and what sovereignty means. This is an issue which has been the subject of serious discussion over a very long period. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which brought the Thirty Years’ War to a close, is often considered as a crucial point in the evolution of the concept of sovereignty. It was then that the idea of not interfering in another state’s affairs really gained

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll